Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @11:32PM
from the joining-the-club dept.

neo12 writes in with the news that India plans on being the 6th country to launch a mission to mars. "Making the first formal announcement on the country's Mars mission, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday said India will send a mission to the Red Planet that will mark a huge step in the area of science and technology. 'Recently, the Cabinet has approved the Mars Orbiter Mission. Under this Mission, our spaceship will go near Mars and collect important scientific information,' he said addressing the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the occasion of the 66th Independence Day."

There is a balance to be had between R&D, exploration, and economic development. If every country in the world waited until they solved all of their social problems, then there would be no R&D or exploration. Additionally, R&D and exploration are related to economic development.

The fact that India is planning on being serious about a space program implies that they are becoming serious about R&D. And with R&D comes economic development which will help out their social problems.

If only our govenment would realize that a space program is more than a galactic pissing contest, that it is a investment ito new knowledge and technology. War isn't the only thing that brings with it new tech, space travel brings new tech because of the never before encountered situations and challenges. The tech developed there can be applied elsewhere as well and with technology comes a raised standard of living.

Call me cynical, but I think government types realize the value of technology and research far more than your average citizen. Many voters seem to like NASA, but they don't get as excited as they do about the prospect of tax cuts, even ones that don't apply to them.

I think the problem is that there is no constituency for R&D in the U.S. The Liberals and Conservatives don't give a rat's ass about R&D because it doesn't help them get re-elected. Middle-of-the-Roaders congress-peoples used to be convinced that R&D paid benefits to society and that one needed a long term perspective. Now that Congress is polarized, each group is only thinking of the next election. You can get anyone of them to parrot the right R&D two-step spiel, but when it comes down to actual votes for appropriations, the Conservatives think of it as Big Government and claim Industry can do it all the R&D necessary and wouldn't it be really neat to buy the next election with a tax cut. The Liberals start crying the blues for the blue haired and their social programs and wouldn't it be neat to buy the next election by using it to "save" the social programs from those naughty conservatives.

It didn't help that those morons from Texas steamrolled the SSC in Texas past the sane choice at Fermilab in Illinois. Finally, Congress got fed up and put a stop to it. That wasn't so bad but it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth for Physics and Big Science which spilled over into Little Science such as NIH and NSF.

Now, the current newest crop of alleged legislators has no history with science and technology. Paul Ryan was an Econ and Poly Sci graduate. Romney is a business tycoon, Obama is still a small-town organizer, and Biden...well, Biden is old guard and should know better but he's currently spending his time telling non-white voters that Romney will put their chains back on (yep, he said it Mississippi or Alabama recently).

Where will the drive to succeed in S&T come from? Will it take China whipping our ass so that we get shamed into it? That's no way to run a country.

Corruption in India is unlike corruption in other places on earth, for in India, corruption is the norm, not the exception

Funds spent on anything - including education - would be reduced 80% to 90% by the time the money reaches the intended target(s)

And the Indian government's announcement that they will spend $100 million dollars on the Mars exploration project (BBC is reporting it as I type) means the project actually cost in between $10 million to $20 million dollars

Spending more money on education isn't the be-all and end-all. But we are talking about a country where lots of children have no access to any education at all. We're not arguing about class sizes in the UK or iPads for US classrooms.

This is very interesting. Nobody says this to the US or European countries or Japan or China that you solve all your problems first before going in for scientific advancement. Even the richest of countries have the homeless and the destitute. The US should not go in for the Mars or Voyager or Pioneer missions as there still are some homeless people in New York? NASA's achievements are followed all over the World as the achievement of human-kind. Moreover, India is not a tin-pot dictatorship where things are done on the whims and fancies of the dictator. The middle-class in India is larger than the population of the whole of the US. They should not have any aspirations?

Not only that. It's clear that india is a country how have not anymore any problems to solve like enegy production and distribution, rising education level in the poorest places of the country... They should spend their money to make india a place where i would love to emigrate than to spend it for the glory to be the first to send humans on mars.

Jesus Christ will you people give it a fucking rest?

You're responding to a post about a:

(*) Technical innovation in a developing country( ) Product shipped to a developing market( ) General discussion about IT in the developing world

They could pay for the entire mission by broadcasting on pay-per-view TV a live (well 8 minute delay lol) robot fight on Mars! Battlebots was the shit back in the day. Naturally, they could take it to Mars and make a fortune!

As far as I can tell, there are only two countries, plus the European Space Agency, that have achieved Mars orbit (by launch year):

United States 1964

United States 1969

Soviet Union 1973

United States 1975

United States 1996

ESA 2003

United States 2003

United States 2005

United States 2007

United States 2011

And there are only two countries that have successfully landed on Mars (by landing year):

Soviet Union 1971

United States 1976

United States 1997

United States 2003

United States 2008

United States 2012

Japan launched a probe, but it failed to achieve orbit (it "missed the planet") and China had a joint venture with Russia that never left Earth's orbit. Wikipedia has a nice graphic [wikimedia.org] illustrating the history of Mars exploration.

Sorry, somehow I thought they were talking about successful launches. In that case, you've got (1) US, (2) USSR, (3) ESA, (4) Russia, (5) China, and (6) My Little Brother, who tried to launch himself to Mars by jumping high enough on his bed. I classified it a failure when he hit his head on the ceiling and passed out, but if the criteria is "launches," then he absolutely has to be on the list, which would make India lucky number 7. Good luck India, and if I may humbly suggest, pillows duct taped to the ceiling will save you lots of headaches in the event that you do not achieve escape velocity.

Well, the Indian economy has slowed down considerably, investor confidence is down, and years later, many of the problems noted in the posts above still remain to be solved. While this mission had been previously reported in other sources, the linked article was published on August 15--Indian Independence day--so the official announcement by the PM sounds more like the kind of feel-good pitch that one can expect in any 'address to the nation,' in most places in the world. The Chandrayaan [wikipedia.org] mission was similarly announced 9 years ago during an independence day speech by a former PM, and completed 5 years later, although the costs ($90 million) were substantially higher than initially announced. Given that track record, it seems highly unlikely that this project can be pulled off in $100 million, although I suppose like any government initiative, the project probably has a better chance of getting funded if the scientists asked for that amount than what it might actually take (say, 10 times as much?), and then ask for more later!:-) At the end of the day, any kind of government investing in science is a good thing, and the recent Mars Curiosity landing is more evidence that a space mission captures people's imaginations like nothing else. Hopefully, this mission will have that kind of effect on the next generation of students in India.

Serious question, why does it seem that Mars is the only planet we're interested in? According to this wiki page [wikipedia.org], there have been numerous flybys, probes, and landings on mars, as well as two rovers. There have also been explorations of venus, though no rovers due to the heat, just two soviet landers. There have been flybys of Jupiter and explorations of jovian moons.

Saturn though, there have only been four flybys. Neptune and Uranus were only observed up close by Voyager 2. And there is a flyby planned for Pluto.
Why isn't there more interest in the further planets? Is it simply that it will take longer? Seems like the sheer number of explorations of Mars would make some of the further targets more interesting.

It gets harder the further out you go. Less sunlight, less efficient solar power leading to use of nuclear isotopic power supplies. IIRC only the US and USSR have used nuc thermal supplies in space - although India does have an active nuclear energy research program and nucular weapons. Harder communications - India doesn't have world wide tracking systems.

India doesn't seem to have a clear path to space. Seems like their missions are scatter shot - one moon, then Mars, then whatever. Who knows what internal politics are going on? Mars also offers the chance to piggy back on US / ESO communication links although I have not heard they plan on doing that.

Besides, Mars is cool. Although in general, I agree. I'd love to see many more Jovian moon missions.

Well, that makes sense. The Jupiter moons, any idea if those would those receive enough light to make a rover feasible?

Mars is cool, but the fact that we've only seen Neptune and (jokes aside) Uranus up close once, and have barely seen Pluto... I'm far more curious about them, that's the only reason I'd want us to move on.

I agree. For space missions, Goldilocks Zone is much more valuable to study than Non-Goldilocks Zone. This also explains the investment in Telescopes capable of finding Earth-sized planets in *other star systems* which could become targets for probes in the future when Faster Than Light travel becomes possible.

A very successful Saturn orbiter mission, Cassini, has been going on for years. Numerous moon flybys, lots of interesting data, pretty pics as well.

Beyond that, the main problem is cost. Uranus is four times farther away from the Sun than Jupiter, Neptune is six times farther away. Travel by direct transfer requires burning lots of fuel in Earth orbit, which makes it very expensive. Using gravity assist requires lots of time, and a long mission requires employing personnel and devoting resources for many ye

Slashdot has interesting and informative posts on many topics, but I don't know why everything goes to hell the moment India is mentioned..

1) It doesn't take a hugeass rocket to send an unmanned probe to Mars. The amount of energy needed once you're in the right orbit to escape earth's gravity is minimal. So it's not that crazy to imagine India doing it given that they already got a probe to reach the moon. It's the next step, not a massive leap. Putting a lander on the moon or Mars, or manned spaceflight would be a much bigger step. So the figure of 100 million is not outlandish and it's very possible and a logical progression given the current technical capabilities of the Indian space program. In fact, India may well be able to use one of their existing rockets for this, the hard part is making sure interplanetary probes get captured into the orbit of the target planet, instead of missing it completely (something that's not that hard to do and multiple countries have aimed and missed in the past, I remember a Mercury probe that ended up orbiting the sun).

2) Yes, India has overwhelming amounts of corruption. The space program is one of the better run organizations though.

3) Even though India is a poor country, due to the sheer size of the population the amount of money the government controls is huge. Not USA/China huge but at least the size of large European economies. 100 million is pocket change. And not spending it on a research mission to Mars that can help advance technology in the country doesn't mean it would go towards feeding hungry people. Just like reducing 100 million of the defence budget in the US won't put that money into schools or universities or healthcare or whatever.

4) It has little to do with the slowing Indian economy (even if it grows at 5% that's far more than most other countries in the world right now).

Slashdot has interesting and informative posts on many topics, but I don't know why everything goes to hell the moment India is mentioned..

1) It doesn't take a hugeass rocket to send an unmanned probe to Mars. The amount of energy needed once you're in the right orbit to escape earth's gravity is minimal. So it's not that crazy to imagine India doing it given that they already got a probe to reach the moon. It's the next step, not a massive leap. Putting a lander on the moon or Mars, or manned spaceflight would be a much bigger step. So the figure of 100 million is not outlandish and it's very possible and a logical progression given the current technical capabilities of the Indian space program. In fact, India may well be able to use one of their existing rockets for this, the hard part is making sure interplanetary probes get captured into the orbit of the target planet, instead of missing it completely (something that's not that hard to do and multiple countries have aimed and missed in the past, I remember a Mercury probe that ended up orbiting the sun).

2) Yes, India has overwhelming amounts of corruption. The space program is one of the better run organizations though.

3) Even though India is a poor country, due to the sheer size of the population the amount of money the government controls is huge. Not USA/China huge but at least the size of large European economies. 100 million is pocket change. And not spending it on a research mission to Mars that can help advance technology in the country doesn't mean it would go towards feeding hungry people. Just like reducing 100 million of the defence budget in the US won't put that money into schools or universities or healthcare or whatever.

4) It has little to do with the slowing Indian economy (even if it grows at 5% that's far more than most other countries in the world right now).

Preach it brother! Every time I see a post about a technical development in India or any other developing country I just brace myself for the usual tidal wave of ignorant racist pricks and Michael Scott/David Brent aspiring comedians who think it's okay to poke fun at dark skinned people who talk funny. "Oh look at the little wogs trying to be all advanced and civilized like us, aren't they adorable?" "They need to solve all their poverty problems first before they start exploring space." Makes me sick.

Um, anyone here ever heard of "offshoring"? Know what they pay for engineers in India, as opposed to the US?

Then there was the news story I heard yesterday, questioning as to why India should spend the money to do that. The idea of having dreams, and goals that *aren't* soley monetary, seems to be not politically correct (at least according to the US right, apostles of St. Ayn Rand.

And if I read the pages correctly, NASA's probe still works, while India's stopped working after a year.
thank you, come again...

If I have a problem that can be solved by a $90 tool and the store only offers me a $583 one that not only will solve my problem but also 10 other problems I don't have then I would probably go to another store.
If my customers want me to develop something that should have a development cost of about $90k and I only offer them a solution for $583k that I think will be a better solution then they are likely to go somewhere else. (And probably not come back.)
Overengineering is a huge flaw and a lot of the times it's even preferable to deliver a subpar/faulty but inexpensive product than delivering something that works well but does and cost way too much. (Yes, marketing is all about talking about quality but you can talk about it all you want, customers will still buy the cheapest product that solves their problem.)

Chandrayaan-1 failed in less than one year and half of its science payload was donated by other countries. It had severe thermal issues that prevented it from using more than one science mission at a time for a while. They eventually had to boost the orbit to try to cool it down, but it still failed.

The LRO doesn't have any donated science payload and has a far more comprehensive mission than that of the Chandrayaan-1. The LRO has completed a comprehensive and detailed map of the surface of the Moon as well as discovering water in a crater with LCROSS. The LRO is running fine and will probably be in orbit and returning data for several more years. This is what another $500 million gets you.

The Mars Climate Orbiter (a NASA mission) cost $330 million and failed completely. Sometimes these things happen in space exploration. One year out of a two year mission isn't awful for a fledgling space programme like India's, and for that sort of cost.

Yes because getting there, planting a flag, and building a land based communication array on Earth are achievements. When you define goals like that, obviously its hard to fail.

Also, it detected water using the M3 from Brown University and the JPL. The Indian produced equipment on it scientifically, and technologically was a joke, and the only new things observed in the mission was done with either American or European equipment on board.

Considering NASA has thought there was water on the moon with more or less reasonable doubt since 1999 during the Lunar Prospector mission, and every space agency since has devoted lots of time validating that data, and trying to come up with ways to get more, I don't see how they had a "vision" as it was a world wide vision for over a couple of decades, with NASA finding evidence of water over a decade ago.

This is the thinking that, amongst others, lead to the destruction of the British motorbike and electronics industries. In the US you are going to lose your car industry in the same way if you are not careful. Watch as 60 years behind, becomes 6 years, then 6 months, then because they are at par and cheaper, your industries will crumble.

We in the US don't have to look at the Brits to see the consequences of such thinking. The US used to mock the Japanese as "cheap camera manufacturers" until they swiftly took the entire semi-conductor industry during the PC revolution. The US has never recovered from that (and the way it goes, never will.)

It is true that Indian (and Chinese) technology is shit compared to ours. How could it not be considering they only have a fraction of the experienced found in the US or in countries like Russia or Japa

India claims it can send something to orbit the Mars for $100 millions.
Can anyone believe that?

You need to read between the lines here. They're going to build a $10 million communications satellite and hitchhike on a Russian rocket (which, based on Russia's Mars exploration history, means the rocket will die somewhere on the way to Mars... just ask China how that deal worked out for them) by offering to put $90 million toward fuel. Then they will route all call center traffic through this satellite, introducing a latency of several minutes between the caller and the call center rep, causing most callers to give up without costing the companies they called any money. So yes, I believe they will attempt it, but no, they will not succeed because all of Russia's attempts (Russia, not the USSR) have failed so far.

Let's see, the United States, paying US rates for labour, managed to build, fly and land the Pathfinder on Mars for about $150 million ('92 dollars) in direct expenditure and spent about the same again running the mission. I think the Indians could conceivably an equivalent mission for less direct expenditure, but that is not a good measure of the peripheral expenditure and effort that would be required to obtain a similar knowledge and infrastructure base to that the US started from.

Yes, it is necessary for their mythology that the Jews assemble in Israel and rebuild the Temple (they are behind on that part) so that Jesus can return and convert those heathens to Chriostianity. The Jews, that is...

1st world - US allied2nd world - Soviet Union and China allied3rd world - Non-allied

This is a Cold War term. The Cold War is over, so stop using it. Saying that the US is becoming a 2nd world country sounds ridiculously stupid to someone who understands what these terms actually mean (meaning that the US is becoming an ally with the Soviet Union and rejecting its alliances with NATO).

There is the Old World which is Europe and Asia and there is the New World which is the Americas. The Third World is that which is neither the new world nor the old world. Nowadays Third World just means poor countries and it has meant non-alighned countries in the past but there never has been a First World nor a Second World, there has only been the New World and the Old World.

So I can rephrase that one for you:2. America heading towards a centrally-planned economy? Check.

No. Centrally planned economy (as implemented within each and every large company) works just fine. The problem is, their strategy is based on destruction of the rest of society, and that works as intended, too.

--Contrary to popular belief, the secular god leftism does indeed lead to disaster.

Couple of billions (if at all) for a country with 1.3 billion people... is not a fuckload of money, sorry.

The stated end goal of Communism is a complete abolition of all government control and the abandonment of a monetary system...

I was bourn in USSR. I'm not sure where your idea about abolition of government control comes from (well, ok, it assumed people would be good enough to require no police etc, but you still need someone to coordinate buildling infrastructure etc).
Main point of communism that was advertised was abolition of a monetary system. And they honestly tried to stimulate people work harder for fame, not money.
It had its downsides, but if you ask people who lived there and have "democracy" now, I don't think most would give a flying fuck about political system.

First world, second world had nothing to do w/ the Cold War. First world meant the first known world to Europeans at the time, which was Europe, the Middle East and the Mediterranean coasts of Africa (think the kingdoms of ancient Egypt, Carthage). The second world was what Columbus discovered - the Americas. The third world was the rest of the world that went on to be colonized by European powers - most of Africa, India, South East Asia and so on.

You're conflating "second world" with "not a superpower". Which is stupid, because the USSR was considered a "second world" country and a superpower, while most of the European countries would be considered firmly "first world" while not being anything like superpowers.

Not that the Cold War lingo really means much these days however you spin it.

In all seriousness, it's cheaper and easier to send a rocket to Mars than it is to undertake the kind of legislative and social engineering required to fix Delhi's traffic and India's electrical problems.

What makes you think they're not trying to do the simpler stuff first? Getting people to use more efficient transportation is a lot more difficult than space travel! There will be a manned colony on Pluto before we fix the traffic mess In Los Angeles, never mind Delhi!

How about a simpler mission first: get from one side of Delhi to the other without hours in traffic.

Simpler? To get something to Mars, you have to push it really hard. To get roads rerouted or mass transit systems to get set up in a sprawling metropolis, you need to get many people to agree to it, and overcome some people who will really want to oppose it for a multitude of reasons.

Actually I intended it largely tongue in cheek. Perhaps the humour would be particularly non-obvious to a non-British audience who don't have to suffer such headlines each time it comes up in the likes of The Daily Fail and other borderline far right FUD publications, so apologies for that.

Supposedly 30% of their households don't have electricity and the remainder suffer from regular blackouts, and they want to go to Mars?How about a simpler mission first: get from one side of Delhi to the other without hours in traffic.

LOL!

Priceless. Better abolish NASA until the travel times across LA are cut back a little, eh?

NASA is probably going to use Russian engines at some point as well, and the recent Air Force test is really an Australian scramjet with some minor tweaks apparently (the air force design is classified but they haven't been working on the design for very long so it must be very similar to what they were given).Sometimes it's better to go with something that works instead of painting a flag on your penis and waving that around.

Just so you know they are not using the russian engine for the Mars mission (they infact have only one russian engine left, and any further launches would have to depend on the indigenously developed cryogenic stage (which did fail spectacularly in 2010, but they are depending on it for both Chandrayaan-2 & the Mar mission))

On reading more, they are using their PSLV for the mars mission. Lesser payload, but no cryogenic stage. So there you go, they already have a rocket, that has been used successfully for so many years (used recently for the moon mission), and they are reusing it. Now go back to your basement and cry that the only complain you could come up with is no longer valid.